TheDailyBanter.com

Banter on the Banter

A reader writes in on Andrew Sullivan Hasn't Read Adam Smith:

Let's not forget he was also in favor of universal higher education. I read Wealth of Nations this summer, and my eyes bugged when I came across passages like "It is but equity..." or the sections about how borders distort market prices (using the example of English peasants who were restricted from moving between counties). Adam Smith argued that restricting the movement of people distorted a market like restricting the movement of goods. Too bad, the Neoliberals (as well as people like Sullivan) don't understand a damn thing he wrote.

American Freedom vs European Freedom

By Ben Cohen

For all our readers who love a good debate - check out the back and forth between our U.K Editor Nick Lang, and two ticked off American readers. The argument centers around the article Lang wrote: "Is American news the reason why everyone thinks the Yanks are stupid?"

I've posted the comments first, then Nick's response after:

From David in Scottsdale:

LOL So Nick - while you dumb ass Europeans are still trying to figure out what the word "freedom" means, we 'stupid' Americans have been inventing, developing, and sharing most of the technology that your sorry ass uses. Ever been on a plane, ridden in a car? Oh yeah - polio vaccine, cancer treatment, dialysis, etc. Let's see, while we're at it - we win the majority of Nobel Prizes. We lead the world by a LOT in GDP. We give billions of dollars to other countries and never ask for anything in return. I could go on but your attention span might not be able to withstand the onslaught of accuracy. Just something to think about the next time your stupid, egotistical ass decides to trash the ONE country on this planet that can guarantee your right to be a fool publicly.

Crackheads on the Banter

By Ben Cohen

This was left on the comment section of the last installment of 'Banter on the Banter' (originally about my article on Rev. Wright). I've left the comments unedited as I found it amusing to read through. Can anyone work out what on earth he is saying? Cash prizes for the best answers....

Well,it is OK, that Bush did the same, that Obama said in one of debates, tha He will attacK Pakistan, no ONE said anything THEN, why now Hillary is the BAD PERSON, BECAUSE SHE IS RUNNIG FOR PRESIDENCY, OR BECAUSE IHE IS A TIPCAL WHITE WOMAN. ISN'T IT THIS A DOBLE STARNARD!!!! MAN CAN SAY , BUT WOMAN CAN NOT!!! HILLARY IS BEYING ACCUSE OF DIRTY AND RACIAL COMPAIN, WITH IS A PURE LIE, BUT OBAMA CAN HAVE DIRTY PASS, UGLY AND UNFAIR REMARCS, AND ALSO DISRESPECTFUL, BUT he IS OBAMA, WHO IS BLACK-WHITE, AND HE IS A MAN???.

Banter on the Banter

By Ben Cohen

A reader writes in response to my article 'Wright is telling the truth about Obama':

I think that had Wright shut his big mouth after he appeared on Bill Moyers' show last Friday, the issue could have effectively been laid to rest. He came across as intelligent, if somewhat eccentric, and the sound bites were put in context. At worst, he came across as being no worse than Falwell or Robertson on the right. However, since then he has seemed to have decided that he wants to Damn Obama's campaign. his attitude and demeanor at the national press club Monday made him seem both insane and an asshole. and, true as it may be, saying that Obama is distancing himself because he has to, can only hurt Obama.

I agree with a good deal of what Wright has said in his sermons, even if I think the way he said it was not too constructive. I support, and have donated to Obama. I think that if this derails Obama, it could be terrible for this country. it seems that Wright is throwing his former congregant, the democratic party/progressive movement, and the entire country under the bus just for 15 minutes of fame, and that is a damn shame.

Banter on the Banter

By Ben Cohen

A reader writes in response to "When will this horrible experiment end?" (a critique of neo liberal economics):

Great synopsis of how we got where we are.  Again, what do we do now?  Certainly, the  Democrat/Republican duopoly has no answers, nor are they looking for any.   

Much agreed. The Democrats are highly unlikely to make meaningful reforms to the economic system we live under. They will try to re-instate certain social programs and ease the burden of poverty for some people, but serious reform has to come from movements on the ground.

Here's my prediction: Given living standards have been propped up by cheap credit for the last 30 years, the decline for millions of people will inspire serious organization for change. We are already seeing this online, and to a certain extent, in the Barack Obama campaign (unprecedented in its reach and size). Unions will form, and pressure will be put on government to work for the general population rather than the small corporate elite. How the government responds to this is anyone's guess, but I am hopefully it will be constructive.

Banter on the Banter

UPDATE: It turns out the reader is the author of copiousdissent.com. I have emailed him to have a debate on free market capitalism on his radio show. Let's see what happens...

By Ben Cohen

A reader writes in response to 'Why Milton Friedman was wrong',

The Poor in the top-5 capitalist nations are better off economically than the poor in any other Nation in the world.

You look anywhere in the world that departs from free markets and capitalism, and you'll see what real poverty looks like.

Moreover, not a single Free Market Capitalist Nation has ever experienced a famine (defined as a complete lack of a food supply).

I'll make a deal with you: You get three more Countries to try your socialist policies. When you hit 1 million people starving to death you don't get any more chances.

If you want to respond, do it on my blog, because I'm not going to come back here to hear such nonsense.

Unfortunately, I'm not aware of the reader's blog so I cannot respond there. Anyhow, this particular issue was dealt with when I debated the author of 'copiousdissent.com'. Check here for the back and forth. The fact that the top five 'capitalist' nations have never been true free marketers makes his point completely irrelevant. However, if he says it loud enough it may one day become true....

 

Banter on the Banter

By Ben Cohen

A reader writes in response to my post on 'Why Milton Friedman was wrong':

I must disagree. We have not had unfettered unregulated economics in over a hundred years. The Federal Reserve and Congress interfered immensely in the market place.

We have had exactly what you wished for, Keynesian economics, with government interfering with government departments like the FDA, SEC, FCC, FAA, etc. Or do you not consider these departments regulating the market in anyway shape or form.

Quite honestly, Mr. Madrick is an utter fool to think that we don't already have Keynesian economics.

I do agree with the reader that there has been intervention in the market, and we have not had unfettered unregulated economics. But the last 30 years has seen a dramatic reduction in the regulation of the financial sector under the banner of Friedmanism. Corporations have been given huge tax breaks and subjected to far less red tape under Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush 2, and the results have been disastrous. I think Madrick's point is that the illusion that markets should not be regulated is now finally disappearing.  Keynes basically stated that government is needed to step in when times are bad to boost the economy, something the Bush administration has long denied (in public at least) but appears to now recognize.

 

Banter on the web

By Ben Cohen

A round up of interesting banter on the web:

Hillary Clinton's campaign is deep in debt. Given the calls for her to quit the race are growing, it's unlikely she will be able to raise the significant amount of money needed to compete with Obama (who is still raking it in). No one seriously thinks she can win, and perception will soon become reality. 

The esteemed economist and  NY Times columnist Paul Krugman gets called out for his unwarranted attacks on Obama's economic policies. Philosopher John Gray warns of future wars over oil and water.

A brilliant dissection in Salon.com of the cowardly behavior of U.S journalists in the build up to war.

Banter on the Banter

By Ben Cohen

A reader writes in response to my article on Iraq accountability:

Thats a good piece you have written here.

Was Tony Blair's alliance with George Bush to take Britain into two illegal wars, a major cause of the terrorist attacks on London? I believe partly. The muslims' anger was basically a bomb waiting to explode, and these ''invasions'' were just the last straw.

I also do blame the media a lot in this. After 9/11, ALL muslims were literally portrayed as terrorists, let's not forget that. Did anybody in the media explain the difference between extremist Muslims and ordinary Muslims? No. So there was no surprise on the retaliation.

Also if you look at the history of US Foreign policy, an attack on their soil was also no surprise, but Im not saying they deserved to have so many deaths. No country does. However the US seems to believe that a minute of silence for their tragedy is more important than any other genocide in the 20th Century.

I was listening the other day of a US soldier in Iraq writing a blog, only to be read if he gets killed in his mission. An interesting thing he pointed out, is that ''dont tell everyone that I died for nothing. I did my best helping the local community to protect them, so the US soldiers death are not in vain.''

And I think thats an interesting perspective, because the media keeps on claiming theses soldiers (American or British) dying for nothing.